[PICTURES/VIDEO] "This has been an atrocious bit of umpiring by both umpires" : Michael Holding

[Napa]

Someone should remind Holding of the Atrocious umpiring decisions made by West Indian Umpires during the Pakistan tour of the West Indies in 1977, 1988 and 1993 when a top Pakistan team were playing virtually against 12 or 13 men.

You have a selective memory. During those decades the behavior of Pakistani umpires was abominable. Miandad had an average of 78 at home and 38 abroad before neutral umpires were introduced. There was also this infamous game:

https://www.cricketcountry.com/arti...di-because-of-blatantly-biased-umpiring-19303

 

[junoon]

Racism definitely seems to be a factor in so many marginal decisions going against WI and Australia always getting the rub of the green.

I also expect a lot of close decisions going against Pakistan in the WC matches to come. I have been watching cricket for more than 23 years and it has always been the case, it is because of racism

 

[gazza619]

Something doesn't feel right. Even in the SA vs Bangla game the umpires were favouring Bangla. Mahmudullah was out twice lbw i believe but not given.

I hope i am wrong.

 

[moghul]

This was easily the worst umpiring I have seen for a long time. Since the introduction of third umpire and review system, umpiring standard has improved, but this one from the dark ages of umpiring.

 

[ExplicitAI]

WI have been robbed of this match, even though they bowled poorly in the later stage of the first innings (allowing Aus to get 280+), they could've still gunned down that total, it was the poor umpiring against WI in the second innings. I feel that a lot of teams are scared of Chris Gayle's form as of recent.

 

[GrandMaster]

Would require an incredibly complicated system that would probably cost a fair bit to develop.

I seriously doubt if it's that complex. We have solution to more complex issues like ball tracking, snickometer etc, not sure why an alert on overstepping cannot be automated.

 

[AAli98]

Icc wants a eng aus ind pak semi by hook or by crook.

If the likes of NZ SL SA win the cup you can kiss 50 over format goodbye its a dying brand.

 

[basitmian]

Umpires should be Fined for bad decisions

 

[Gilly]

All the incorrect decisions were overturned though.

 

[volcyz]

The clown won’t be reprimanded by racist ICC

 

[ekpakistani]

Is international cricket now becoming WWE....

 

[angrypathan]

All the incorrect decisions were overturned though.

Were the missed no-balls and the resulting free-hit that would have followed also granted in retrospect? Get your head out of the sand and call a spade a spade for once

 

[jagatk]

All the incorrect decisions were overturned though.

Nope, Gayle would have been not out had the cheat given the 2 feet no ball. Also someone needs to review the WI complaint that a lot of marginal wide calls went against them while bowling. Because given what those 2 did during WI's batting it clearly can't be ignored that Gaffney and the other might have started their aussie love in during the first innings itself.

 

[Lovelydayall]

Chris Gaffney was quite shakey after Gayle reviews overturned his out decisions. At the end of that over, Starc was asking for his jersey and glasses from Gaffney and he was trying to give white ball back to him with trembling hands.

 

[Indiafan]

You come up with great excuses.

Come on man, the Gayle one should never have been given, even with the no ball not called. Was just brushing outside if leg stump

 

[Indiafan]

All the incorrect decisions were overturned though.

The missed no ball was not. Also The Gayle one would never have been given by any other umpire, it was just brushing outside part of leg stump

 

[jnaveen1980]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/crick...-chris-gaffaney-slammed-for-chris-gayle-calls

New Zealand umpire Chris Gaffaney slammed for Chris Gayle calls

 

[Gilly]

The missed no ball was not. Also The Gayle one would never have been given by any other umpire, it was just brushing outside part of leg stump

No balls are missed all the time, Gayle was out though wasnt he?.

 

[jnaveen1980]

No balls are missed all the time, Gayle was out though wasnt he?.

Benefit of the doubt should have been given to Gayle for one thing. Second thing. why did he miss the previous noball. Also 2 of his decisions were overturned. Imagine someone else had used up the review. Those 2 would have been out. Stop trying to defend this crap. That guy should be penalized. I am not even sure it is incompetency. It was pure bias for whatever reason.

 

[Gilly]

Benefit of the doubt should have been given to Gayle for one thing. Second thing. why did he miss the previous noball. Also 2 of his decisions were overturned. Imagine someone else had used up the review. Those 2 would have been out. Stop trying to defend this crap. That guy should be penalized. I am not even sure it is incompetency. It was pure bias for whatever reason.

How does that work, if a player is out then he is out. Why should Gayle not be given out when he is out?.

 

[jnaveen1980]

How does that work, if a player is out then he is out. Why should Gayle not be given out when he is out?.

Umpire's call means it is 50/50. It entirely hinges on what the umpire does. When 1.5 stumps are visible no umpire with credential will not give that out. Given the previous two howlers atleast he should have considered this. No. He just gave out. It was almost like he was going to keep raising his finger no matter how many times it gets overturned. For lbw calls batsmen some times don't review since they don't want to waste the review. It might very well have happened. Gayle luckily went for the review. I am not sure you are understandting the point everyone is raising or you are pretending not to understand.

 

[Gilly]

Umpire's call means it is 50/50. It entirely hinges on what the umpire does. When 1.5 stumps are visible no umpire with credential will not give that out. Given the previous two howlers atleast he should have considered this. No. He just gave out. It was almost like he was going to keep raising his finger no matter how many times it gets overturned. For lbw calls batsmen some times don't review since they don't want to waste the review. It might very well have happened. Gayle luckily went for the review. I am not sure you are understandting the point everyone is raising or you are pretending not to understand.

Well it was out, so I dont know how you can call a good call the wrong decision. If you look at the cricinfo commentary they thought it was out.

4.5 stone dead this time around! Starc couldn't pierce Gayle with the yorker on the previous ball but this time around Gayle is late getting the bat down on an 86 mph delivery pitching very full and hitting him low on the shin in front of middle. After waiting 12 seconds while chatting with Hope, Gayle finally calls for the review.... Ball-tracking confirms it was clipping leg-stump on umpire's call.

Calls he made that were wrong were corrected as they should be. The one where the ball hit the stump was a very hard call because there was a nick so it was understandable, the only really poor call was the LBW going down wide of the leg stump.

Call him out for poor decisions but dont exaggerate by calling good calls wrong.

 

[MRSN]

How does that work, if a player is out then he is out. Why should Gayle not be given out when he is out?.

Gayle didn't make any foot movement and you could see two stumps. That was slipping legside and batsman should be given benefit of the doubt because the angle Starc was bowling would have taken it to the legside. And considering he made two big errors before he shouod have given that not out. Dumb umpiring to be honest.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Well it was out, so I dont know how you can call a good call the wrong decision. If you look at the cricinfo commentary they thought it was out.


Calls he made that were wrong were corrected as they should be. The one where the ball hit the stump was a very hard call because there was a nick so it was understandable, the only really poor call was the LBW going down wide of the leg stump.

Call him out for poor decisions but dont exaggerate by calling good calls wrong.

Umpire's call means not 100% out. It is 50/50 out.A totally biased umpire even after his two decisions got overturned didn't hesitate to give a 50/50 out without thinking. Are you telling me that buffoon was able to predict that ball was certainly going to hit the stump flush with accuracy but wasn't sharp enough to spot a gigantic noball? Nobody is buying it. This guy should be fired for showing bias.

 

[Executioner]

Something doesn't feel right. Even in the SA vs Bangla game the umpires were favouring Bangla. Mahmudullah was out twice lbw i believe but not given.

I hope i am wrong.

I don't think anything like that happened. SA could've taken review as well if they felt it was out

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

Chris Gaffney was quite shakey after Gayle reviews overturned his out decisions. At the end of that over, Starc was asking for his jersey and glasses from Gaffney and he was trying to give white ball back to him with trembling hands.

But he still gave him out, he was on a mission to give him out. But all the bad decision were overturned, Australia won fair and square.

 

[Gilly]

Umpire's call means not 100% out. It is 50/50 out.A totally biased umpire even after his two decisions got overturned didn't hesitate to give a 50/50 out without thinking. Are you telling me that buffoon was able to predict that ball was certainly going to hit the stump flush with accuracy but wasn't sharp enough to spot a gigantic noball? Nobody is buying it. This guy should be fired for showing bias.

No you are wrong, the decision where Gayle was out was out 100% no bad decision.

Yes he did make a howler earlier on the LBW but that was overturned.

You are getting confused and think that just because one was a bad decision then they all must be.

 

[Kianig89]

Pathetic from umpire should be sacked from WC panel all teams should protest against this clown robbed off an entertaining knock from Gayle Aussies lucky again

 

[Mkumar825]

This is bloody world cup ,how can they do mistake again and again .

 

[Madplayer]

No you are wrong, the decision where Gayle was out was out 100% no bad decision.

Yes he did make a howler earlier on the LBW but that was overturned.

You are getting confused and think that just because one was a bad decision then they all must be.

Did you see the size of no ball that got missed? Does that seem normal to you? How many times does a no ball of that size get missed by umpires? Gayle was out on what should have been a free hit. Apart from this, it seemed like the umpire felt some sort of compulsion to vindicate himself by giving Gayle out on marginal decisions.
Finally, this is a game of passion and emotions. You are acting like a robot with a mechanical/black and white view of things.

 

[HitWicket]

I seriously doubt if it's that complex. We have solution to more complex issues like ball tracking, snickometer etc, not sure why an alert on overstepping cannot be automated.

Snickometer is a pretty simple piece of tech used in many other applications. Ball tracking isn't simple, but again it's used in many other places and is based on the tracking of an object with a constant shape and size. The cost of developing a technology to accurately track the exact positioning and shape of a foot from 70+m away relative to a line isn't just going to be incredibly complex but also expensive.

 

[Braveheart]

Haven't been watching, but when Gayle reviewed that decision how did anyone else not see the no-ball?

Don't they usually check for the no-ball first during the review

The amount of no-balls Not called in international cricket is the 'Elephant in the room' which has been 'covered up' by the authorities and TV media for too long.
Currently, no-balls can only be retrospectively be checked when a batsman is Out and walking off.
However, there are many that do not get called during a game and the Media will every now and then select one to fill in for debate. Just think of all those 'Free-hits' and extra runs that could change the course of a Match.
I was at the 2018 Eng v Australia T20 match in Birmingham and sitting in the Eric Hollis stand adjacent to the Pavilion crease line and observed no less than 5 'Massive' clear cut No-Balls that were not called. 3 were from Willey and 2 were from Plunket.

 

[DHONI183]

[PICTURES] "This has been an atrocious bit of umpiring by both umpires" : Michael Holding

During those couple of overs, it seemed as if giving out Gayle was the sole purpose left of the umpire´s life!

Something should seriously done about the Umpire´s Call system. It leaves too much room for the decisions to go in the favour of one team. Purely by probability, you can have three batsmen from one team not being given out on the Umpire´s Call, and three given out from the other team based on the same system - even if the ball is hitting the stumps on exactly the same spot on all six occasions. I know I´m exaggerating in numbers but we´ve seen it happen in international cricket on two to three occasions in matches.

 

[GrandMaster]

Please correct me if I am wrong. Hawk eye already exists in cricket, Wimbledon and other sports. Why can’t the technology be used to track bowlers feet?

Snickometer is a pretty simple piece of tech used in many other applications. Ball tracking isn't simple, but again it's used in many other places and is based on the tracking of an object with a constant shape and size. The cost of developing a technology to accurately track the exact positioning and shape of a foot from 70+m away relative to a line isn't just going to be incredibly complex but also expensive.

 

[HitWicket]

Please correct me if I am wrong. Hawk eye already exists in cricket, Wimbledon and other sports. Why can’t the technology be used to track bowlers feet?

Hawkeye tracks a standardised shape object that has a consistent surface. Tracking the complicated shape of a shoe (which also varies between each player) would be a whole different ball-game (pardon the pun).

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Jason Holder "funny situation where all the decisions went against us" <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AUSvWI?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AUSvWI</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CWC19?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CWC19</a> <a href="https://t.co/kK1QECBSOT">pic.twitter.com/kK1QECBSOT</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/1136890765936865280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[happydavy]

The umpiring was bad (and looked biased) in yday's game, no doubt about it, but like always the perennial cribber Michael Holding got OTT. The same person who kicked stumps and shoulder pushed the umpire has the audacity to compare "appeals during his time" to an appeal made by Zampa. He should check with his good friend Steve Bucknor on how many appeals it used to take to get a decision out of him

 

[MenInG]

West Indies allrounder Carlos Brathwaite has expressed his frustration at "dodgy'' umpiring during the 15-run loss to Australia and questioned why his team does not get as many lbw decisions as their rivals.

West Indies overturned four calls by the two umpires in Friday's (NZT) match at Trent Bridge, including two in three balls against Chris Gayle in the third over of the innings by Mitchell Starc.

The ball that trapped Gayle lbw in the following over from Starc should have been a free hit because of a no-ball by the Australia paceman the previous delivery that Kiwi umpire Chris Gaffaney missed.

"I don't know if I'll be fined for saying it,'' Brathwaite said, "but I just think that the umpiring was a bit frustrating. Even when we were bowling, we thought a few balls close to head height were called wides.

"And obviously three decisions ... as far as I can remember being dodgy, it was frustrating and sent ripples through the dressing room. To lose Chris in a chase of 280, who can probably get 180 of them himself obviously, broke the start that we wanted to have. But the umpires do their job. They try to do it to the best of their ability, we as players go out there to do our job as well.''

"I just think that for West Indies, we don't have to use all our reviews and that some of the other teams get a chance to use theirs because every time we get hit on our pad, the finger goes up,'' he said. "When we hit the opposition on their pad, the finger stays down.

"So we have to use our reviews and it's always missing and then we have to use our reviews when we're batting as well and it's always clipping. I'm not a technology person, I don't know why that happens. I can just say what I have seen happen over the past few years.''

Brathwaite said the removal of Gayle for 21 wasn't the sole reason for West Indies failing to chase down Australia's total of 288, but it didn't help.

"We had eight other wickets after that and it was incumbent on us to go out there and deliver a performance which we didn't for whatever reasons,'' he said. "We will discuss and try to rectify for the next game.

"Did it hamper the start? It definitely did but it didn't cost us the game.''


https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/crick...aite-frustrated-at-dodgy-decisions-by-umpires

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Gayle didn't make any foot movement and you could see two stumps. That was slipping legside and batsman should be given benefit of the doubt because the angle Starc was bowling would have taken it to the legside. And considering he made two big errors before he shouod have given that not out. Dumb umpiring to be honest.

Yeah. It was officially out but the umpire had no shame even when giving that out

 

[Iqbal'sh]

Would require an incredibly complicated system that would probably cost a fair bit to develop.

All you need is the third umpire watching the action and informing the on field umpire of any no balls he has missed.
The on field umpire retains initial decision making power, the third umpire steps when he believes it has been missed by the on field official.

 

[Gilly]

All you need is the third umpire watching the action and informing the on field umpire of any no balls he has missed.
The on field umpire retains initial decision making power, the third umpire steps when he believes it has been missed by the on field official.

Didnt the umpires advisory committee advise that umpires will pretty much ignore no balls but every wicket will be checked so no batsman is dismissed on a no ball. The logic behind that is the bowler cannot benefit from a no ball. Umpires could still call no balls though.

 

[jnaveen1980]

No you are wrong, the decision where Gayle was out was out 100% no bad decision.

Yes he did make a howler earlier on the LBW but that was overturned.

You are getting confused and think that just because one was a bad decision then they all must be.

oh my god.Do i have to explain to you about "umpire's call". Answer me this. If the umpire had not given that out will that be overturned on review? If not it is not 100%. It was out because umpire gave OUT. He got away with that "umpire's call". Basically a biased umpire can keep on giving wrongly out until that becomes an "umpire's call".

 

[jnaveen1980]

Australia had been getting away with bias umpiring for so long. On that count i respect English umpires a lot. Most of them were fair. They better don't have howlers against India in the next match between India and Australia. They will not hear the end of it.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

Didnt the umpires advisory committee advise that umpires will pretty much ignore no balls but every wicket will be checked so no batsman is dismissed on a no ball. The logic behind that is the bowler cannot benefit from a no ball. Umpires could still call no balls though.

Problem with this logic is that the batting team misses out on a potentially momentum changing free hit as well as some runs.
I thought there were discussions about trialling this with third umpire monitoring no balls.
How difficult would it be for the third umpire to check where the bowlers feet land and transmit this information to the umpires (in case they missed it)? I don’t know what else the third umpire is doing in between the DRS action, this could be introduced without any cost outlay.

 

[Gilly]

oh my god.Do i have to explain to you about "umpire's call". Answer me this. If the umpire had not given that out will that be overturned on review? If not it is not 100%. It was out because umpire gave OUT. He got away with that "umpire's call". Basically a biased umpire can keep on giving wrongly out until that becomes an "umpire's call".

Under the current rules a batsman can be given not out even if the ball is partially hitting the stumps.

A bowler under no circumstances can get a batsman out without the ball hitting the stumps.

 

[Gilly]

Problem with this logic is that the batting team misses out on a potentially momentum changing free hit as well as some runs.
I thought there were discussions about trialling this with third umpire monitoring no balls.
How difficult would it be for the third umpire to check where the bowlers feet land and transmit this information to the umpires (in case they missed it)? I don’t know what else the third umpire is doing in between the DRS action, this could be introduced without any cost outlay.

Every wicket they check for no balls, it could be more beneficial for teams if a bowler is not told he is bowling no balls and misses out on a wicket.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

I’ve never been convinced about umpires call on DRS lbw calls. It allows enough opportunity for the match officials with bias to affect the course of a match.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

Every wicket they check for no balls, it could be more beneficial for teams if a bowler is not told he is bowling no balls and misses out on a wicket.

In reality this doesn’t happen, otherwise the tv commentators would be all over it , yes an umpire may miss occasional no balls but not repeatedly.
In fact most umpires feed back to the bowlers if they think they are getting close to the line

 

[jnaveen1980]

Under the current rules a batsman can be given not out even if the ball is partially hitting the stumps.

A bowler under no circumstances can get a batsman out without the ball hitting the stumps.

"partially hitting" is a result of dodgy ball tracking technology. This is why umpire has to consider factors like "do i see any stumps" "do the ball is carrying on with angle" before giving out. IN this case both are true. I don't think it mattered for this umpire. He just wanted to see the back of Gayle.

 

[Gilly]

I’ve never been convinced about umpires call on DRS lbw calls. It allows enough opportunity for the match officials with bias to affect the course of a match.

Match officials have no input into the DRS.

 

[Gilly]

"partially hitting" is a result of dodgy ball tracking technology. This is why umpire has to consider factors like "do i see any stumps" "do the ball is carrying on with angle" before giving out. IN this case both are true. I don't think it mattered for this umpire. He just wanted to see the back of Gayle.

There is no person on earth that can get all the calls correct, umpires are going to make mistakes, we have learnt that through 100 years of cricket. DRS can correct some of those decisions, it worked perfectly. No balls are a different issue, I think the WI managed to bowl a few at Pak and Australia but never complained.

 

[humzy]

Not really, we have a strong brotherly relationship so it makes sense

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Match officials have no input into the DRS.

But they can rule out or not out knowing that the marginal decisions will go their way due to umpire's call. It makes a massive difference in reality.

 

[hadi123]

Honestly, them making wrong lbw decisions is natural and part of the game, DRS is there for a reason. However, missing that HUGE no ball by Starc was criminal. Even if Gayle wasn't out the next ball, that shouldn't be happening. I hope Gaffaney gets some sort of warning for that as that's ridiculous.

 

[Saj]

The glaring errors are made by the same umpires again and again, yet they keep getting picked in the elite umpires panel.

 

[Dead Ball]

How bad has been the umpiring this World Cup?

Countless decisions being reversed and some really stinking howlers. Aleem Dar has begun with a stinker today, although India at fault for not reviewing too.

Hasn't been an umpires World Cup so far. Would have been much much worse without the DRS.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I don't mind bad umpiring as much as I do this stupid concept of 'umpire's call'. It is open to bias and I just don't see the need for it other than to give umpires some feeling of self-importance. But we aren't watching these games to see umpires perform, we want to see the correct decisions given with no room for quirky decision making.

 

[BreadPakoda]

Aleem Dar has been criminally poor. Especially against India.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Warne was right about Aleem Dar

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Warne was right about Aleem Dar

What did he say? England carry him around in their pocket for all their series with good reason?